Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Yes, preaching atheism and challenging religious claims are two very different things.
Theist tries to tell atheists what they believe
- Thread starter Trek
- Start date
Concordicus
Registered Member
Why is this so surprising? Atheists are always trying to tell theists and deists what they believe.
In their most simplistic forms:
Theists and Deists accept the concept that something existing outside of our material Universe had the wisdom, the ability and the resources to bring into being a material Universe.
Atheists accept the concept that the only thing that exists is our material Universe,
In their most simplistic forms:
Theists and Deists accept the concept that something existing outside of our material Universe had the wisdom, the ability and the resources to bring into being a material Universe.
Atheists accept the concept that the only thing that exists is our material Universe,
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
When it involves misinformation regarding science yes.
Concordicus:
For deists, this is essentially all that they believe about god(s). A deistic god, after creating the universe, basically sits back and does nothing. The natural laws created by the deity are left to run automatically, without further supernatural intervention. Deism strikes me as a "god of the gaps" argument, at best.
As for theists, their belief in a god as Creator of the universe is usually secondary to other considerations. Much more important, usually, is the notion of an interventionist god who takes a direct interest in human affairs, who (sometimes) answers prayers, who sits in judgment over human beings upon their deaths, who communicates with at least some human beings directly (or has done so in the past), and who is made in man's image (though theists usually get that one backwards), etc.
Some "New Age" types are atheists who believe in "spiritual energies" and similar, even though they do not believe in the kinds of gods described by mainstream religions.
You're generalising. My own approach, for example, is to ask theists and deists what they believe, then to try to dig down to learn why they believe it.
Not all of them, but certainly this is what some of the largest religions preach.
For deists, this is essentially all that they believe about god(s). A deistic god, after creating the universe, basically sits back and does nothing. The natural laws created by the deity are left to run automatically, without further supernatural intervention. Deism strikes me as a "god of the gaps" argument, at best.
As for theists, their belief in a god as Creator of the universe is usually secondary to other considerations. Much more important, usually, is the notion of an interventionist god who takes a direct interest in human affairs, who (sometimes) answers prayers, who sits in judgment over human beings upon their deaths, who communicates with at least some human beings directly (or has done so in the past), and who is made in man's image (though theists usually get that one backwards), etc.
Not necessarily. What you are talking about there is a philosophical position called materialism. Not all atheists hold that the physical universe is all that exists. Many keep an open mind about the supernatural, even though there doesn't seem to be any good evidence for its existence.
Some "New Age" types are atheists who believe in "spiritual energies" and similar, even though they do not believe in the kinds of gods described by mainstream religions.
TheVat:
It is, of course, true that there are many "moderate" Christians and Muslims and such. They believe in one or more gods, but they don't believe that everything in the holy book of their religion (e.g. the bible or the Qu'ran) should be taken as the literal truth. They also tend to be selective about which of the "commandments" of their holy book they follow and in how much relative importance they ascribe to each one.
There is typically a lot of cherry picking in the more moderate sects of the mainstream religions. Certain moral principles are given prominence, for instance, while the more morally dubious or repugnant commands of God (as recorded in the Holy Book) are dismissed as no longer relevant in the modern era or argued away as having been revoked by God at some stage (even though though the evidence in the Book itself does not support such a reading).
It is very common for "moderate" followers of mainstream religions not to have read their holy book cover to cover. Much more commonly, they have been exposed to certain passages from the book that their particular sect or denomination has decided to highlight as the important ones, while they are unaware of (or uninterested in examining) passages that prescribe behaviours that are in conflict with their own moral intuitions.
For the supposed Word of God, the Holy books are surprisingly ambiguous and self-contradictory. They are full of contradictions and all of them apparently require "correct interpretation" to decide what God really wants/requires of his followers. That leaves a huge latitude for different sects to impose their own "interpretations".
Many moderate theists will arguing that their preferred Holy book contains lots of good moral advice and such. That is true, but the good moral advice doesn't actually require the God; similar advice can be found in secular morality. These theists also tend to ignore the appallingly bad (im)moral examples set by their gods in the Holy Books. For example, the God of the bible ordered (even personally committed) genocides. The same God condoned slavery and even gave instructions on how slaves should be acquired, kept and treated. These things don't indicate to me the kind of God that might be worthy of worship, even if the God were to exist. But many moderate theists are unaware of those parts of the Holy books, or else they find ways to explain it away (in some cases, trying to justify the unjustifiable).
I agree that the religious moderates are not the primary problem when it comes to followers of organised religions. The radicals and fundamentalists are, obviously, much more of a concern. But I think it is important to recognise that the fundamentalists and the moderates, in the end, both claim to believe in the same religion. Only their personal interpretations of the Holy texts and what the god requires are different. The moderates will argue that the fundamentalists are wrong and misguided etc., and vice versa. There's no real way to objectively decide who is right and wrong, however, merely by referring to the Holy book itself. In fact, the fundamentalists might have the stronger case, based on the most literal interpretation of the Book. If the moderates need to appeal to more universal values to make their case, then they are not really "following the religion", as such.
Some moderates "solve" the problem essentially by inventing their own, personalised, version of their religion, picking and choosing from the holy book or books and mixing in ideas from secular philosophy and such (in some cases without realising it). But can these moderates then really describe themselves as "Christian" or "Muslim" (for example)? What remains of their religious beliefs is a theism and whatever cherry-picked elements they have chosen to cling to.
This is what religious indoctrination does. One is taught not to question, but to submit. "Islam", to take one example, explicitly means "submission". In Christianity, one is often asked to recite a Creed that implicitly says, in effect, "I accept that the following things are true, and if I ever question them then de facto I will be leaving the faith." Information on why one should accept the elements of the Creed as historically accurate is not provided, and no encouragement is given to seek out such information.
A common part of the process for moderate theists who deconvert and become atheists is that they start to examine the foundations of their religion and ask the obvious questions, like "How do we know this actually happened the way that the Holy Book describes? Are there good reasons to believe this is historically accurate?"
It is, of course, true that there are many "moderate" Christians and Muslims and such. They believe in one or more gods, but they don't believe that everything in the holy book of their religion (e.g. the bible or the Qu'ran) should be taken as the literal truth. They also tend to be selective about which of the "commandments" of their holy book they follow and in how much relative importance they ascribe to each one.
There is typically a lot of cherry picking in the more moderate sects of the mainstream religions. Certain moral principles are given prominence, for instance, while the more morally dubious or repugnant commands of God (as recorded in the Holy Book) are dismissed as no longer relevant in the modern era or argued away as having been revoked by God at some stage (even though though the evidence in the Book itself does not support such a reading).
It is very common for "moderate" followers of mainstream religions not to have read their holy book cover to cover. Much more commonly, they have been exposed to certain passages from the book that their particular sect or denomination has decided to highlight as the important ones, while they are unaware of (or uninterested in examining) passages that prescribe behaviours that are in conflict with their own moral intuitions.
For the supposed Word of God, the Holy books are surprisingly ambiguous and self-contradictory. They are full of contradictions and all of them apparently require "correct interpretation" to decide what God really wants/requires of his followers. That leaves a huge latitude for different sects to impose their own "interpretations".
Many moderate theists will arguing that their preferred Holy book contains lots of good moral advice and such. That is true, but the good moral advice doesn't actually require the God; similar advice can be found in secular morality. These theists also tend to ignore the appallingly bad (im)moral examples set by their gods in the Holy Books. For example, the God of the bible ordered (even personally committed) genocides. The same God condoned slavery and even gave instructions on how slaves should be acquired, kept and treated. These things don't indicate to me the kind of God that might be worthy of worship, even if the God were to exist. But many moderate theists are unaware of those parts of the Holy books, or else they find ways to explain it away (in some cases, trying to justify the unjustifiable).
I agree that the religious moderates are not the primary problem when it comes to followers of organised religions. The radicals and fundamentalists are, obviously, much more of a concern. But I think it is important to recognise that the fundamentalists and the moderates, in the end, both claim to believe in the same religion. Only their personal interpretations of the Holy texts and what the god requires are different. The moderates will argue that the fundamentalists are wrong and misguided etc., and vice versa. There's no real way to objectively decide who is right and wrong, however, merely by referring to the Holy book itself. In fact, the fundamentalists might have the stronger case, based on the most literal interpretation of the Book. If the moderates need to appeal to more universal values to make their case, then they are not really "following the religion", as such.
Some moderates "solve" the problem essentially by inventing their own, personalised, version of their religion, picking and choosing from the holy book or books and mixing in ideas from secular philosophy and such (in some cases without realising it). But can these moderates then really describe themselves as "Christian" or "Muslim" (for example)? What remains of their religious beliefs is a theism and whatever cherry-picked elements they have chosen to cling to.
I think that, in many cases, it is not that moderate religious people have abandoned critical thinking. It is more often the case that they put their religious beliefs in a special category, where they are exempt from the critical thinking that is routinely applied to other kinds of truth claims.
This is what religious indoctrination does. One is taught not to question, but to submit. "Islam", to take one example, explicitly means "submission". In Christianity, one is often asked to recite a Creed that implicitly says, in effect, "I accept that the following things are true, and if I ever question them then de facto I will be leaving the faith." Information on why one should accept the elements of the Creed as historically accurate is not provided, and no encouragement is given to seek out such information.
A common part of the process for moderate theists who deconvert and become atheists is that they start to examine the foundations of their religion and ask the obvious questions, like "How do we know this actually happened the way that the Holy Book describes? Are there good reasons to believe this is historically accurate?"
Last edited:
TheVat
Registered Senior Member
James, whilst I agree that moderates may suspend critical thinking on the matters of faith they have prioritized, I think there's a significant fraction who simply avoid metaphysics and any historical issues and define their Christianity as following the moral teachings of Jesus. So, without deconverting, they have sidestepped the process by never really embracing doctrine in the first place. Mention the nasty vengeful stuff in the OT, and they are likely to dismiss it as cultural detritus of ancient societies. One can certainly ask (as many hardcore Christians would) if they aren't just secular humanists who show up on Sunday for the fellowship and homebaked goods. Depends, I would guess, on whether one defines Christian as "following the compassionate model of Jesus, the man," or as "formally declaring Jesus to be the one and only Son of God." I would say that a fair number of scientists and academics who call themselves Christian are more so in the former sense. I think Unitarians toss out the latter definition entirely. Interestingly, their emphasis on social works and activism seems to me more Christian (as in, WWJD) than many of the faith-based sects.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Well no, this is not what the thread is about. It is about descriptors regarding religion.
I myself am an anti theist, anti religion, agnostic atheist.
I usually shorten this to "atheist."
Pithy.
I think you just don't like the idea of being evangelical.
But you're an anti-theistic, anti-religious atheist who gets in debates about evolution, and even dicusses it in threads about theists and atheists; you're an evangelical atheist.
And I've never understood how even a basic question of purpose becomes so confusing.
And compared to the last fifty years of history, that's some starry-eyed naïveté. And, sure, I get that you skipped over that part, but it is actually kind of important. Decades of typal "measured exchange and a calm presentation of facts" may have planted many seeds, but there is also a question of what actually grows.
To the other, if that part isn't really about others, but just about yourself and planting seeds, then, sure: In all that time, attending the stations of archetype just doesn't seem to have worked, except, uh, maybe it just doesn't have anything to do with anything, or something: How can I say whether it worked if I don't know what it is for? And in that sense, like I said, I wouldn't necessarily tell you to not make the pitch.
Short form: If you appear to be doing it wrongly, that assessment could easily be irrelevant because it presumes you're trying to accomplish within a certain range of something; and, sure, within that range casting seeds about as such has failed to be effective, but it is not mine to assign your purpose.
Or, practically speaking, and to reiterate↗: I would have thought it had something to do with the reduction of religion or religious influence in society, but time and tide, and atheists, have disabused me of such presumptuous silliness.
†
Let me try to illustrate:
Inasmuch as that is anything more than an easy and empty line, the fourth-wall note, here, would be to make two related points: The fact that henotheism has traction in reliable scholarship―
―has little or no practical effect in the living question of religion being "bad for humanity".
―is an important clue to understanding altenatives for addressing religion that is "bad for humanity".
―is an important clue to understanding altenatives for addressing religion that is "bad for humanity".
The thing is, I might criticize method, sometimes, according to questions of purpose, but there are other methods available; insofar as↑ different pathways lead to different places, there is always the prospect having spent the last forty to fifty years disputing over the wrong question↗, i.e., traveling a road to nowhere.
†
Also, it's important to note, your attemped language of mastery is a stylistic thing that doesn't really help, e.g.,
You realize that's not helpful, right?
• Version 1↑: "My contact with these guys usually come via a debate or tutorial on Evolution. We will be discussing some points, interesting details and then a comment will pop up, 'Evolution is a lie.' When pressed the poster will make a few comments will demonstrate the fact that they do not know what the theory is."
• Version 2↑: "First, a Creationist exclaimed 'Evolution is a lie,' on an educational video."
• Version 2↑: "First, a Creationist exclaimed 'Evolution is a lie,' on an educational video."
Not only do those tellings seem to conflict with each other ("he will walk away a creationist", "my contact", "we will be disucssing", "the poster", compared to "exclaimed … on an educational video"), but, also, the latter version really does read like an affirmation of evangelism. Archetypal video characterizations promoted for the purpose of being seen in hopes of planting seeds: How do you not know that is evangelism?
And, really, did you really think nobody would notice? It's the sort of thing that stands out to people who aren't new, when some alleged atheist goes telling the same sorts of stories I can hear from old men of faith. It sounds just like Christian evangelists describing typal caricatures in order to firm up their evangelism and pretend against uncertainty. Or, to the other, maybe you're just so accustomed to these ritual performances you don't notice.
And in that sense, again, like I said, I wouldn't necessarily tell you to not make the pitch. It's just that when you get to the part about planting seeds, it's worth recalling history and asking what germinates. Or did you never stop to think about that part?
In your imagination, all these seeds you cast about: When they germinate and take root ("perhaps just a small one but it will be there", #499↗), do you presume what you have planted will be fruitful? Inasmuch as the second objective is "to try and [get] that person to think", do you presume they are thinking whatever it is you want them to ("there will be a doubt there", "a nagging question about the Bible")?
So, here we come back to a question: If an atheist seeks a result from such discussion, what result do they seek? And, are they sure about that? That is to say, there is the question of whether you think this road will get you there; in all that time, attending the stations of archetype just doesn't seem to have worked.
Y'know. Time. Tide. Christian nationalists. Look around.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Sure why not?